Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
Shweta – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
ORDER :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
“a).The impugned action of the respondents whereby the account of the petitioner has been frozen may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused her bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. He, therefore, prays that the disputed amount which has been received in petitioner’s account may be freezed but, the amount other than the disputed amount may be allowed to be withdrawn. He further prays that the petitioner may be allowed to operate her bank account for the transaction of money.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the bank account of the petitioner has been freezed in pursuance of the instructions/complaint received from respondent Nos.2 to 4. Learned counsel for
The court affirmed the right to operate a bank account while addressing concerns related to ongoing investigations into alleged cyber crime, emphasizing cooperation with authorities.
The court ruled that a bank account can be de-frozen while allowing transactions, provided the account holder cooperates with ongoing investigations.
The court affirmed the right to operate non-disputed funds in a bank account while cooperating with ongoing investigations into alleged fraudulent transactions.
A bank account may be de-frozen and operated by the account holder during an investigation, provided they cooperate with authorities and only disputed amounts are frozen.
The court affirmed that a bank account should not be unjustly frozen without evidence of wrongdoing, allowing the petitioner to operate his account while restricting only the disputed amount.
The court emphasized the balance between a bank's compliance with law enforcement and the rights of account holders during investigations.
The court ruled that a bank account can be de-frozen for legitimate transactions while freezing disputed amounts involved in alleged fraud, provided the account holder cooperates with investigations.
Freezing a bank account requires just cause and evidence; the petitioner must be allowed to operate their account barring disputed funds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
